MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038528720

Improving the integration of care for trans adults

2024· other· en· W7038528720 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Research Online (The Open University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth and Social Care Delivery ResearchInternational Network of Agencies for Health Technology AssessmentNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchProQuest
KeywordsFocus groupService (business)Service providerHealth careQualitative researchConstruct (python library)DemographicsQualitative property
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

bBackground/b
\nbr/br
\nThis research concerns improving the National Health Service health services trans adults need. These include the national specialist Gender Identity Clinics that support people making a medical transition. Not all trans people need to make a medical transition, and transition can take many different paths. Waits to be seen by Gender Identity Clinics are, however, several years long, and there may be significant problems of co-ordination between different aspects of transition-related care, and between transition-related care and general health care.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbObjectives/b
\nbr/br
\nThe main objectives were to understand:
\n - Which factors make services more or less accessible and acceptable to the variety of trans adults?
\n - How initiatives for providing more person-centred and integrated care can be successfully implemented and further improved?
\n br/brbr/br
\nbDesign, data sources and participants/b
\nbr/br
\nAn online and paper screening survey was used to gather data on demographics and service use of trans people across the United Kingdom, with 2056 responses. Researchers used survey data to construct five purposive subsamples for individual qualitative interviews, identifying groups of people more likely to experience social exclusion or stigma. There were 65 online interviews. In addition, 23 trans Black people and people of colour attended focus groups.
\n 
\nSix case studies were completed: four on initiatives to improve care and two on experiences of particular trans populations. Fifty-five service provider staff and 45 service users were interviewed.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbResults/b
\nbr/br
\nThe following undermine person-centred co-ordinated care and can lead to experiences of harm:
\n - lack of respectful treatment of trans people by general practitioner practices;
\n - inadequate funding of services;
\n - lack of support during waiting;
\n - the extended and challenging nature of Gender Identity Clinic diagnostic assessments, sometimes experienced as adversarial;
\n - breakdowns in collaboration between Gender Identity Clinics and general practitioner practices over hormone therapy;
\n - lack of National Health Service psychological support for trans people.
\n 
\nCase studies indicated ways to improve care, although each has significant unresolved issues:
\n - training in trans health care for general practitioners;
\n - third-sector peer-support workers for trans people who come to National Health Services;
\n - gender services taking a collaborative approach to assessing what people need, clarifying treatment options, benefits and risks;
\n - regional general practitioner-led hormone therapy clinics, bringing trans health care into the mainstream;
\n - psychology services that support trans people rather than assess them.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbLimitations/b
\nbr/br
\nSome contexts of care and experiences of particular groups of trans people were not addressed sufficiently within the scope of the project. While efforts were made to recruit people subject to multiple forms of stigma, there remained gaps in representation.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbConclusions and future work/b
\nbr/br
\nThe findings have significant implications for commissioners and providers of existing National Health Services gender services, including recently established pilot services in primary care. In particular they point to the need for assessments for access to transition care to be more collaborative and culturally aware, implying the value of exploring informed consent models for accessing transition-related care. Further research is needed to investigate how far the findings apply with particular subpopulations.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbStudy registration/b
\nbr/br
\nThis study is registered as Research Registry, no. 5235.
\nbr/brbr/br
\nbFunding/b
\nbr/br
\nThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/51/08) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research ; Vol. 12, No. 28. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0120.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Research Online (The Open University)French-language works237,207